RVR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal for A

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and stock for the year. All these facts stated in the reasons recorded are taken by the AO from the assessment record itself which manifest that after completing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) the AO has reopened the assessment on the basis of the same facts and records available with him and no new material or facts which were

S GANDHI JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

bogus purchases of gold amounting to Rs. 1,55,00,000/- from M/s N.S. Jewellers & Bullion during FY 2016-17. The AO issued a notice under section 148 on 31/03/2021 after forming a belief that income had escaped assessment. The appellant contended that the reasons recorded for reopening

JAI PRAKASH SHAHANI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradjai Prakashshahani, Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Jai Prakash Impex, Nfac, Delhi Vs. 73, New Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apqps7948G Assessee By Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2025

assessment proceedings. She also stated that the approval u/s 151 of the Act is also mechanical in nature. She further stated that the reasons 4 Jai PrakashShahani– A.Y 2014-15 on the basis of which the case of the assessee has been reopened are regarding alleged bogus purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE vs. FERRO CONCRETE CON INDIA PVT. LTD., INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

bogus purchases. The Appellant in his written submission has primarily objected to reopening of assessment submitting that the AO has not made

SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR PARASHAR,INDORE vs. THE DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

reopening the case of the appellant merely on the basis of NMS information and without independent application of mind which is neither legal nor proper. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Assessing officer erred in re-opened the case by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act even when

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

reopening of the assessment is the claim of loss of Rs.3,56,04,837/- from the F&O transactions carried out through M/s Xpro Securities was to be assessed tax by treating the same as fictitious entries of loss obtained by the assessee. During the reassessment proceedings the AO issued show cause notice u/s 142(1) dated 09.03.2022 which

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and sale of share and securities. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 16.12.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 5,02,650/-. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 31st March, 2018, for assessing the income escaped assessment on account of bogus

HIMANSHU BOTADEARA HUF,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(3), INDORE

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assesse are

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

purchase and sale of share and securities. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 16.12.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 5,02,650/-. Thereafter, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 31st March, 2018, for assessing the income escaped assessment on account of bogus

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

reopening of assessment after the time limit permitted under the Act. Order so passed by Ld. CIT(A) therefore, is arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 02) Section 148: Issue: Proceedings of reassessment barred by time: That the CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating the fact that notice under section 148 of the Act was issued based

DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S KALYAN TOLL HIGHWAY PVT.LTD, INDORE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

bogus expenditure on account of purchase of M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 Bitumen and then inflated the project cost and concluded that the appellant had made a wrong claim on account of expenditure incurred against cost of the project under consideration and is in default for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income and levied a penalty

GLOBUS HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the “impugned

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

bogus loan to assessee during the year under assessment. In view of above fact, the region for reopening of assessment as recorded following the procedure and law as prescribed the fact and circumstances of the assessee's case are different from the case law cited. In view of the above discussion the objection raised by assessee is disposed

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Assessment Year 2014–15 on 30.09.2014 declaring a total income of ₹4,47,380/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information available with the department, it was noticed that the assessee had allegedly obtained bogus purchase accommodation entries amounting to ₹5,50,000/- in the concern M/s Jawahar Ice Depot and ₹8,00,000/- in the concern M/s ITA Nos.178-180/Ind/2025 Bharat

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Assessment Year 2014–15 on 30.09.2014 declaring a total income of ₹4,47,380/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information available with the department, it was noticed that the assessee had allegedly obtained bogus purchase accommodation entries amounting to ₹5,50,000/- in the concern M/s Jawahar Ice Depot and ₹8,00,000/- in the concern M/s ITA Nos.178-180/Ind/2025 Bharat

BHARAT KALWANI,INDORE vs. ITO-4(3), INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs as directed above

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Assessment Year 2014–15 on 30.09.2014 declaring a total income of ₹4,47,380/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information available with the department, it was noticed that the assessee had allegedly obtained bogus purchase accommodation entries amounting to ₹5,50,000/- in the concern M/s Jawahar Ice Depot and ₹8,00,000/- in the concern M/s ITA Nos.178-180/Ind/2025 Bharat

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

purchased loss unless it is proved that the amount paid to these brokers has come back to the appellant. The law is well settled that burden to prove that the apparent is not real is on the person who claims so and the same is required Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 to be discharged

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S. MANISH AGRO TECH PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result grounds of revenue for A

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

purchased loss unless it is proved that the amount paid to these brokers has come back to the appellant. The law is well settled that burden to prove that the apparent is not real is on the person who claims so and the same is required Cross Objection Nos.5 & 6/Ind/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16 to be discharged

KUNAL VYAS,INDORE vs. ITO 4(1), IND, MAIN BUILDING, INDORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

bogus resulting in unexplained investment entries, particularly when income returned has been accepted by AO. 9) Because, the impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction being non est in law on account of non-observance of the mandatory statutory procedure laid down under the provisions of section 144B of the Act. 10) Because, the impugned assessment order

SEEMA LUNAWAT,RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDSAUR

Appeal is allowed

bogus LTCG/STCL. However, the AO did not specify any\ntransaction related to the alleged scrip, also the Ld. AO could not mention that\nwhether it was purchased or sold, thereby proving that the case was reopened on\nbaseless assumptions.\n(d) The reasons for reopening mention, \"escapement of income of Rs.189,650/-",\nwhereas the AO, in the assessment